Court File and Parties
COURT FILE NO.: FS-16-0095-00
DATE: 2018 Oct 19
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
MARGARET ELIZABETH DANCY
Applicant
– and –
JAMES IAN ALLAN MASON
Respondent
Mark A.B. Frederick, for the Applicant
R. Steven Baldwin, for the Respondent
HEARD: written submissions
Tranmer J.
COSTS DECISION
[1] Rule 24(1) provides that there is a presumption that the successful party is entitled to costs.
[2] Rule 24(6) provides for a case of divided success.
[3] This is a case of divided success. Ms. Dancy secured spousal support for a further seven years. Dr. Mason secured an end date.
[4] No party achieved an outcome more favourable to her or his Offer to Settle. Therefore, Rule 18 does not come into play.
[5] The factors in Rule 24(11) lead me to conclude that the legal costs incurred by each party, as disclosed, are reasonable and should have been within the reasonable expectations of the parties.
[6] I find that no party succeeded to a greater extent than the other in the result.
[7] Accordingly, there shall be no Order for costs. Each party shall bear her or his own legal costs.
Tranmer, J.
Released: October 19, 2018
COURT FILE NO.: FS-16-0095-00
DATE: 2018 Oct 19
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
MARGARET ELIZABETH DANCY
Applicant
– and –
JAMES IAN ALLAN MASON
Respondent
COSTS DECISION
Tranmer, J.
Released: October 19, 2018